In 2003, philosopher Nick Bostrom proposed a trilemma that he called "the simulation argument". Despite the name, Bostrom's "simulation argument" does not directly argue that we live in a simulation; instead, Bostrom's trilemma argues that one of three unlikely-seeming propositions must be true. The trilemma points out that a technologically mature "posthuman" civilization would have enormous computing power; if even a tiny percentage of them were to run "ancestor simulations" (that is, "high-fidelity" simulations of ancestral life that would be indistinguishable from reality to the simulated ancestor), the total number of simulated ancestors, or "Sims", in the universe (or multiverse, if it exists) would greatly exceed the total number of actual ancestors. Therefore, at least one of the following three propositions is almost certainly true.

1. "The fraction of human-level civilizations that reach a posthuman stage (that is, one capable of running high-fidelity ancestor simulations) is very close to zero", or

2. "The fraction of posthuman civilizations that are interested in running ancestor-simulations is very close to zero", or

3. "The fraction of all people with our kind of experiences that are living in a simulation is very close to one"

At least when it relates to his 'simulation argument, Bostrom raises some strong points.

I've tried to come up with my own 7-point process of staged contradiction, in order to try and disprove the simulation argument. And, I cannot.

I am of the opinion that we must wrangle more with these particular propositions highlighted. And that we must expend the time/energy/resources in order to be able to further peer into the nature (fabric) of reality. As well, continue to unearth the mechanism through which we will continue learning about our consciousness.

The making of these comment, is not so suggest that Iendorse Bostrom's opinion about a whole range of issues. In particular, the issue, the claim, that certain technologies must be deliberately retarted.